Live data from Hacker News

Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

nature.com

301–310 of 404 posts

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labelling is one thing (putting a warning underneath posts with the current understanding of a given topic), but the step too far (in my opinion) was the silencing and deplatforming by way of removing posts and banning users. No company should have unfettered control over the metaphorical "town square" to control population-level discourse.

Ahhhh, it's not a town square. It's Mordor, the panopticon. And we're just a horde of orcs wondering when meat's back on the menu.

We are in fact the meat.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That blog post is complete nonsense. You can't look at graphs of when mask mandates were introduced and then lifted, because you can't isolate cause and effect. Mask mandates tend to get introduced when cases are going up, and removed when cases are going down. This would be absolutely shredded in a scientific paper, which is why it's a blog post rather than part of the literature.

Kinda unsettling that we even required masks on the public with no evidence they worked going in, eh? If they truly worked to a level that justified their use, I’d expect it to have made a massive impact on important metrics. Thus far, I see no evidence of that. You can compare the trajectory of various geographic regions and they all follow the same basic shape in the same ball park regardless of policies in place.

> Kinda unsettling that we even required masks on the public with no evidence they worked going in, eh?

No, not in the slightest. The evidence wasn't perfect, but you have to operate using the best working evidence you have. It's logical that face coverings reduce spread of a virus spread primarily through respiratory droplets. The experimental evidence also supports it.

The downside, of people being mildly inconvenienced by wearing a cloth over their face, is tiny compared the risks of your health systems getting overwhelmed. The disturbing thing is that we did not initially err on the side of caution.

> I’d expect it to have made a massive impact on important metrics.

It doesn't have to have a massive impact to be useful.

> You can compare the trajectory of various geographic regions and they all follow the same basic shape in the same ball park regardless of policies in place.

"Same basic shape". What, you mean up then down, as new variants emerged, and seasonal effects were encountered? How are you assessing that they are the same shape? Have you done an analysis against all countries with reliable data or are you eyeballing the graphs from a few cherry-picked regions by a blogger?

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collins and Fauci are not elected, though Collins had the decency to step down (after holding the longest tenure ever of an NIH director).

I didn't know Collins has resigned until I read this. What problems do you have with Fauci and Collins? I am just curious and am reading more and not trying to be aggressive about this. It seems to me like they were the sole rational voices during the Trump administration.

I’m not a right-wing Fauci hater, but I think he’s just not that good at his job.

He found himself in a tough situation, having to tell inconvenient truths to a President that had every reason to downplay the virus because he had up to that point a very strong economy and was up for re-election in less than a year. Guess what—that’s a key part of the job for a high level government official. Politics always influences the theoretically neutral scientific agencies, and diplomatically handling such situations is essential. Trump wasn’t some singularity in this regard: he was more bombastic in his rhetoric, but the rush to normalize things in advance of an election wasn’t unique to him: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/04/ba2-omicr...

In this context, a competent public official would (1) jealously guard his credibility; and (2) assure the public that he understands that controlling the pandemic isn’t the only thing people care about. Fauci has consistently failed to do either. He made assertions about masking, natural immunity, and schools that we’re ill-advised and turned out to be wrong. And he has shown no ability to convey to the public that he understands the balancing of competing social interests. With him, it’s always about the most cautious approach.

Fauci is a good illustration of why it’s dangerous to put wonks in public-facing leadership positions. There’s an argument that someone in Fauci’s position should just focus on the most cautious possible approach and leave the balancing of competing policy interests to elected officials. But in a pandemic, the public will look to health officials for leadership and guidance. They’re not just in the back room crunching numbers for the political decision makers.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#304
post #175

It is rather interesting to consider that many countries in Asia (China / Japan / Taiwan / Vietnam / Malaysia that I am aware of) happily ignored the WHO on masks and, with regards to Japan, actively promoted the airborne nature of COVID-19 early on. I remember seeing specials on NHK visualising the spread from a sneezing person in a room in March 2020. There were also a lot of helpful PSAs like the 3C model [0] and…

> There were also a lot of helpful PSAs like the 3C model [0] and comparing the potential aerosol spread of the virus to cigarette smoke (when you would smell the smoker - he could also infect you with the virus) Early on when people were still often forgetting to stay farther away from strangers I seriously considered switching to doing my grocery shopping between my morning workout and my morning shower to discoura…

But who knows whether a Covid infectee or carrier used that same shopping cart before you!8-) And how many times have you seen a shopper finger goods and put them back on the shelf for you or another to unsuspectingly pick up?!

Bwahahahaaaaaaah! Covid strikes again! You cannot get away!

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#305
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for France, we had a lot of flat out lies throughout the pandemic. The most obvious one was on masks and their lack of protection, hammered week after week by the gov spokesperson, until there was enough masks to be distributed. Then masks started to be pushed by the gov, people were encouraged to make their own, and we all know the story from there. There was no lack of information or evidence, and they pai…

Masks in general provide very little protection. I recommend you listen to the explanations by infectious disease experts Dr. Monica Gandhi and Dr. Michael Osterholm. Only properly fitted N95 (or equivalent) masks provide significant protection. Throughout the pandemic most people weren't wearing those, and those who did mostly wore them incorrectly. https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/ https://open.spotify.com/epis…

> Masks in general provide very little protection. I recommend you listen to the explanations by infectious disease experts Dr. Monica Gandhi and Dr. Michael Osterholm. (...)

It literally takes less than 5min in Google to realize your criticism is utter bullshit, and even come across statements by Dr Monica Gandhi complaining that her comments were misrepresented and distorted to come across as authoritative anti-mask assertions.

Please be more responsible and stop contributing to spread blatant misinformation.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facts are carefully constructed human artifacts, not ideal platonic forms. Since they are usually formed by a consensus, or at least the appearance of a consensus, they are inherently political. The scientific method will tend to produce facts which are "eventually consistent" with reality, but since humans are involved, it's not a guarantee, especially in the short term.

>Facts are carefully constructed human artifacts, not ideal platonic forms. Is that a fact, or opinion?

tenuousemphasis says>"Is that a fact, or opinion?"

I'll muddy the waters here: neither, it is a belief.

I prefer to avoid the term "fact" b/c it leads to too many arguments, just as is happening here. Rather than "facts" we have beliefs and some things we believe more than others.

--------------------------

"...in this analysis we shall approximate the horse by a sphere of radius r..."

    - physicist's monologue in joke about racehorses, engineers, chemists and physicists.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#307
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are facts. Better to state “please stop politicizing uncomfortable facts”. Some facts are essentially absolute such as the speed of light in a medium. Some are statistical in nature and so can change as additional information appears (population response). And some are only inferences. The problem appears when people fail to differentiate these categories through ignorance or point of view. Remember that “n…

Facts are carefully constructed human artifacts, not ideal platonic forms. Since they are usually formed by a consensus, or at least the appearance of a consensus, they are inherently political. The scientific method will tend to produce facts which are "eventually consistent" with reality, but since humans are involved, it's not a guarantee, especially in the short term.

> Facts are carefully constructed human artifacts

Beliefs about questions of fact may be, facts are not. At least, by the usual definition of “fact”.

If we’re just redefining words, sure, whatever.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We all remember Boris Johnson going on TV and saying "Well, you'll have to just take it on the chin". You remember wrongly. He said we considered taking it on the chin, but decided against it. I think Boris has done very badly in his handling of the pandemic; given how many bad decisions he made, it's strange that people seem fixated on this thing he didn't say.

> He said we considered taking it on the chin, but decided against it. Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot. By the time Boris started appearing on TV, COVID was already on the UK doorstep having marched through China, Asia and Europe. By that time, even a five year old kid could have told you that "taking it on the chin" was not up for discus…

> Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot.

Not really. Two years ago, when COVID started to spread outside China, the initial concern was the potential impact it would have on saturating national health services and there was no concern regarding it's death rate, which led to the "flatten the curve" political talking point.

Keep in mind that "flatten the curve" implies that everyone is expected to contract the disease sooner or later, but only in a way that doesn't overwhelm health services. Back then it was presumed that contracting COVID was not a cause for concern, and that after the first infection then everyone was finally immune and everything was back to normal.

Only after COVID was experienced first hand outside of china, and thus without being subjected to the CCP's censors, did the world learned about it's true fatality rate, transmission rate, reinfection rate, and lingering health problems. Afterwards there were subsequent variants which again became pandemics.

When the real impact of COVID started to become noticeable, the approach to the disease changed radically to one based on containment at all cost followed by mass vaccination campaigns once the first effective vaccines started to become available.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#309

It's unfortunate that they were loud with the misinformation and very quiet with the correction.

Exactly this.

- A claim is made with apparently uncontested evidence like a video, picture, quote, article, or endorsement.

- Knowledgeable viewers see the story and realize something is wrong.

- Meanwhile, the original claim starts to get spread by the "credible" media such as newspapers, TV, and online publications.

- Critics then mock and complain on social media about the claim.

- The regular news eventually catches up and makes new stories over the corrected claim without a reference to their original claims.

Hold these people accountable and don't give them your attention. Journalism has lost much of it's integrity.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the "town square" would become completely overrun with hateful people yelling falsehoods through microphones. Normal people would avoid the "town square" like the plague.

I agree. But wait until you have rational thoughts that get you banned and deplatformed for “misinformation”. I didn’t think it would ever happen to me until it did… there is definitely a balance between keeping toxic crap off a forum and labeling everything the admins happen to disagree with as “misinformation”

What specifically did you say that got you banned?
Post reply on HN